.....It may sound unbelievable, but Canada’s revised laws on impaired driving could see police demand breath samples from people in bars, restaurants, or even at home. And if you say no, you could be arrested, face a criminal record, ordered to pay a fine, and subjected to a driving suspension.

You could be in violation of the impaired driving laws even two hours after you’ve been driving. Now, the onus is on drivers to prove they weren’t impaired when they were on the road

“The person answers the door and they say, ‘Sir, we’ve had a complaint about your driving, we need you to provide a sample,” said Neuberger, noting if the person failed to provide the sample it would likely lead to arrest.

READ MORE: Canada’s new impaired driving laws are now in effect — here’s what to know

Engel said someone could be unjustly prosecuted. If a disgruntled business associate or spouse called police with a complaint and an officer went to investigate at the persons’ home or place of business, police could demand a breath sample.

“Husbands or wives in the course of separations would drop the dime on their partner,” Engel said, describing the potential for the law’s abuse by those calling police out of spite, for example.........

This came into place December 18. The government introduced new legislation to combat drug-impaired driving with the legalization of marijuana and just decided that they would give the police the power to violate all of our rights.

Here's an example of a senior who was forced to give a sample because the police officer felt he was returning too many empties to the beer store:

Quote:Imagine you drive to the bar and plan to Uber home, he says. The police can now stop you on your way out of the tavern and demand a breath test. If you fail, it’s then up to you to prove you weren’t over the legal limit when you drove to the establishment less than two hours earlier and that you always had a plan to get a ride home and weren’t intending to get behind the wheel.

Lacy is also concerned about who the police may target with their new power to randomly stop drivers and demand breath tests: “It’s going to be vulnerable communities, young black kids who are driving and other racialized communities who are going to be more affected by this.”

And some unsuspecting seniors as well.

“I felt violated,” says Lightowler. “What do we have now, a police state?”

This law had to have been contacted by defense lawyers and pumped up with a little MADD money.

Now you get some easy to beat charge that requires a $1500 payment to some loser in a TJ Maxx suit. DUI law is the bottom of the barrel for those shitbags. And watch, lawyers will defend hundreds of cases against it until a rich enough guy gets a dui and fights the law itself.

There was some screwball way the law was written in Hawaii that lawyers exploited for years. It was a simple wording flaw. It wasn't until I think Michelle Rodriguez or somebody famous got on that they pursed changing it. That lawyers practice sure as shit had nothing to do with DUIs.

Install a home security monitoring station or at least a fancy doorbell with a camera in it. Keep your curtains drawn and a half empty bottle of sleeping pills in the medicine cabinet.

If the police arrive at your door just pretend you're asleep.

This works for the kind of shit listed in the OP as well as surprise gun safe inspection visits and all sorts of stupid bullshit.

Unless you've got warrants or are suspected of committing a felony then they're not kicking down your door. Let them pound and shout all they like. If questioned later, "I got home and took some sleeping pills and a shot of vodka. It's the only way I can get some rest."

Stop playing by 1950's rules when everyone else is playing by 1984.

I can be reached intermittently at my listed email address.
Feel free to drop me a line.

(01-10-2019 10:54 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote: So wait, the law is making it illegal to become drunk within two hours of having operated a vehicle? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

In response to a loophole. Self-identified alcoholics would keep beer in their car and after an accident would start drinking it (making it impossible to prove whether they were drunk before or after the accident and thus avoiding a DUI charge).

Technically speaking, although no where as common, some tales of businessmen purposely drinking alcohol whilst signing a bad contract to get out of it.

It's really easy to "backdate" alcohol blood levels these days; they do it here when people drive home drunk then run inside the house and down a bottle of whiskey or whatever to try and evade prosecution.

I suspect that the reality is that this is something similar.

The UK drug driving laws, however, are ridiculous...you can be banned for having marijuana in your system that you smoked DAYS ago. If you smoke weed in the UK you are essentially giving up the right to drive.

(01-11-2019 03:56 AM)BaatumMania Wrote: In response to a loophole. Self-identified alcoholics would keep beer in their car and after an accident would start drinking it (making it impossible to prove whether they were drunk before or after the accident and thus avoiding a DUI charge).

Technically speaking, although no where as common, some tales of businessmen purposely drinking alcohol whilst signing a bad contract to get out of it.

There's actually quite a few cases where it is an off-duty cop that pounds a bunch of drinks after an accident. And lawyers/judges too...

(01-11-2019 12:02 AM)Emancipator Wrote: Can't wait to see this squashed in the courts, unconstitutional.

The Liberals and the minister of justice have been absolute jokes when it comes to the law.

You'd think.

Unreasonable search and seizure, bodily samples taken as conscriptive evidence against one's own person (refusal to blow when demanded is an offence in and of itself in Canada by the way, so there is basically no choice) and an undermining of the innocent until proven guilty fundamental principle of justice arising from the reverse onus. Should be some huge Charter arguments.

But the Charter is not being used for what is once was and you can't trust the Supreme Court of Canada to be the bastion of those types of rights anymore.

Take the decision they made today about "voting rights". Since 1993 (although this just changed recently under the Trudeau government, as it is as left wing as the Court) if you were absent from Canada for more than 5 years, you lost your right to vote. That makes sense to most people, since if you have no skin in the game here, you shouldn't be telling other people who do who you want to lord over them or how much taxes they should be paying (especially if you pay none). In one of the most leftist-globalist decisions in recent memory, the SCC says that the 5 year rule is unconstitutional. They've basically guaranteed the franchise to citizens for life, even if they leave Canada and want nothing to do with the place anymore.

I cannot fathom the logic behind this decision other than "Canada is the first post-national state" and BS about "global citizenry". We have documented anchor-baby and birth tourism problems here.

The same SCC will be asked eventually to opine on the constitutionality of the new DUI laws. You can probably see why I only trust them to do the most leftist thing possible (i.e. the government and its agent are infallible - prove to us you're not guilty).

What do you expect, our dumbass PM's pick for justice minister is some employment equity female minority.

Another unintended consequence* of this legal change is the following: recently there was a Supreme Court decision (R v. Jordan) that saw charges dropped against a whole swath of mafia/biker types who were facing some very serious and major gangsterism/organized crime charges.

What happened was prosecutors laid the charges before the police had finished gathering all their evidence, which resulted in the court cases dragging on over a couple of years. One of the defendants mounted an appeal saying that their right to a speedy trial was being abused or neglected; Supreme Court found in their favour and that was that.

When our courts start getting tied up with all these forthcoming charter-breach cases and lawsuits, expect to see more actual criminals walk free thanks to Jordan and an overloaded justice system.

*this gov't is all about the unintended consequences: they can't think more than one move ahead.

"Intellectuals are naturally attracted by the idea of a planned society, in the belief that they will be in charge of it" -Roger Scruton

I 100% agree that the courts will be tied up because of this impaired driving bullshit and actual criminals will walk free because of Jordan issues.

Meanwhile our liberal government and our justice minister (former prosecutor) have used this Jordan decision to push more criminal justice laws out all in the name of "speeding up the justice system."

There are laws coming down the pipe that will eliminate the right to have a preliminary inquiry (similar to a grand jury) unless the offence carries a life sentence.

This is problematic because prelims are very important in sexual assault cases. Since the police rarely investigate the offence and just believe the complainant, a prelim is a great opportunity for the defence to explore the complainant's story and find out where there are weaknesses. That way when it goes before a jury the defence can be focussed on the weak parts of the case.

Prelims are also great to get evidence for third-party record applications, and 276 (prior sexual activity) applications. The court system is going to slow down even more because we will be setting and starting jury trials and having to adjourn for last second applications because there was no prelim to work those issues out.

Like ed pluribus unum said, this government can't think more than one step ahead. Everything they try to do to speed up the system will just slow it down even more.

01-11-2019 10:28 PM

The following 2 users Like Agrippa's post:2 users Like Agrippa's postEmancipator, Aurini

Cops here in BC opt to charge/ticket/impound DUIs under the MVA, which means a much lower standard for proof than a charge under the criminal code. Easier for them, less paperwork, no bloodwork just breathalyzers.

No courts only tribunals and a shit ton of fees (impound with different lengths of time, immediate roadside suspended license, then a few months later you're likely to receive a much longer suspension notice via mail, forced to take DUI driver's ed classes on your weekends, some are even forced to install breathalyzers in their car at their own cost). They way they do this has a ton of flaws, you just have to shell out to a good lawyer to fight it with a ton of paperwork and at the tribunal, which after you can get reimbursed for all the related costs incurred. Many people don't though, making it a good cash cow for the provincial government.

The new changes in the law also makes it easier for them by compelling you to blow into a breathalyzer without reasonable cause (before they'd have to smell alcohol or you'd have to admit to even drinking "one" beer before requiring you to blow)

Of course they had implemented this change to combat doing what Monty Robinson the RCMP officer did (accident, go to bar saying you drank to calm your nerves) but even then it seems like it's easy to get around it like Lenny D posted above.

Get in an accident, leave your license behind, maybe even have a timestamp? Drive away, park and ditch your car somewhere, avoid the cops for 2/3 hours like in a GTA game???

Even then if you're home, you can run the clock, they aren't able to enter without a warrant, which takes them longer than 2/3 hours to obtain.

Dumb changes and dumb laws by a dumb Justice Minister and Liberal government...

Mother Nature is a bitch & Father Time has an undefeated record"If you watch cinderella backwards, its about a woman who learns her place." --Kbell

(01-11-2019 03:44 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote: Install a home security monitoring station or at least a fancy doorbell with a camera in it. Keep your curtains drawn and a half empty bottle of sleeping pills in the medicine cabinet.

If the police arrive at your door just pretend you're asleep.

This works for the kind of shit listed in the OP as well as surprise gun safe inspection visits and all sorts of stupid bullshit.

Unless you've got warrants or are suspected of committing a felony then they're not kicking down your door. Let them pound and shout all they like. If questioned later, "I got home and took some sleeping pills and a shot of vodka. It's the only way I can get some rest."

Stop playing by 1950's rules when everyone else is playing by 1984.

Going on my sig when I figure out how to do it.

Basically what Leonard said is the way to combat it. Just don't answer the door until they kick it down. Whether you want to give them the sleeping pill story or not is to taste.

"Stop playing by 1950's rules when everyone else is playing by 1984."
- Leonard D Neubache

(01-11-2019 03:44 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote: Install a home security monitoring station or at least a fancy doorbell with a camera in it. Keep your curtains drawn and a half empty bottle of sleeping pills in the medicine cabinet.

If the police arrive at your door just pretend you're asleep.

This works for the kind of shit listed in the OP as well as surprise gun safe inspection visits and all sorts of stupid bullshit.

Unless you've got warrants or are suspected of committing a felony then they're not kicking down your door. Let them pound and shout all they like. If questioned later, "I got home and took some sleeping pills and a shot of vodka. It's the only way I can get some rest."

Stop playing by 1950's rules when everyone else is playing by 1984.

Going on my sig when I figure out how to do it.

Basically what Leonard said is the way to combat it. Just don't answer the door until they kick it down. Whether you want to give them the sleeping pill story or not is to taste.

Yes I want to make it clear that I plan on using that line, where when and how much I'm not sure at this point. Of course I do not plan to claim authorship or to identify the author.

I had a discussion about this yesterday with some friends and the sentiments were:

In a big city that you don't need to own a car, why have one anyway.
If self driving cars actually become a thing, then this will be void in a few years anyway - blame the robot
Don't answer the door, and don't talk to police for any reason whatsoever.
Don't drink - it's poison for your body and mind anyway - learn to game without it.

It's ridiculous as it takes away burden of proof, and id 1984 level of surveillance. I think that there will be some high profile cases in the future of this - how do they prove you were driving? How do they prove you were intending to drive? How do they prove you just didn't get lit up when you got home or to the bar?